Vehicle theft consequences after collision

I've been watching a lot of police shows recently, mainly police interceptors and motorway cops.

Something that never gets clarified that I've been wondering is, if someone steals a car then totals it but the owner doesn't have fire and theft or fully comp insurance does the thief have to cover the costs of repairs or a replacement car or does the owner just get shafted?

If someone stole my bike I'd make sure they were the one who paid for my excess!! Or for the total value and not go through the insurance. (I'd also probably break their legs but that's a different matter...)

I'm just a bit curious really

Not worth having just third party insurance these days (if anyone still offers it).
I think if all else failed there might be some criminal compensation from the government, not sure of the details though, if any.

Yeah I noticed that, I've got fire and theft because it was about £200 cheaper than third party for some reason.
I just think that the criminal should have to pay for everything, excess if applicable or the full cost if not or the victim should get some kind of financial subsidy that the criminal then has to pay off. As they're the one committing the crime, the victim shouldn't be left with a massive bill

That would be the case, but more often than not scum of the earth thieves dont have any money so it would take years at £1 a week.

That's true.
Or we should go back to the old ways and cut thieve's hands off

[Bibio]

ermmm.. i think your missing the point of insurance. how can you expect to get a pay out if your only third party... its in the wording of the type of insurance.

third party.. only covers if you bump them.

third party fire and THEFT oohhh look your covered if someone steels your car.

fully comprehensive covers you for all eventuality except acts of god, terrorism and civil riot.

i suppose you could take the criminal to court for damages and loss of property but chances of that are zero.

No... I fully understand how it works, I may have not phrased it well.

My point is that when you're fully comp or fire and theft you still have excess to pay and it seems unfair for you to have to pay that when it's the criminal whose caused you to need to pay the excess, so their lack of respect is coming out of your pocket.

The other point is that if you only have 3rd party I think that, as part of their sentence, the thief should cover any damages.

[Bibio]

if you take third party only then its the person who is taking the insurance that is running the risk.

btw you can get insurance without excess but it costs more.

i do agree with you but then the thief is just going to go out and commit more crime to pay his fines, how can you take money from someone who does not have any.

i think the biggest problem are the prisons are like holiday camps and this is wrong. take everything away from them and make them suffer for their crime then they might think twice about offending again. if theft sentences were worked out like wages on basic rate it would be better.. steal £10k, pay £10k back in time making goods to keep the prison system in funds instead of government hand outs, but no privatisation as then its just a business and you get what happens in the states.

take a life, loose a life.

you get the idea.

Same as if the thief stole anything else.